May 9, 2011

The NYT passes along the Democrats' puzzling PR on the subject. Senator Menendez says: "Big Oil certainly doesn’t need the collective money of taxpayers in this country. This is as good a time as any in terms of pain at the pump and in revenues needed for deficit reduction." The collective money? Interesting use of the word "collective." It's a tell, isn't it? If anyone has money, they have the people's collective money. Somehow taking that is supposed to to help people who are feeling "pain at the pump." It's hard to see how. But maybe the key phrase is "This is as good a time as any." It's always a good time for taxing!

127 comments:

Obama said he would necessarily bankrupt the coal companies with his dictate to force them to pay for carbon emissions. And he told Joe the Plumber that we need to spread the wealth, and that the Bush tax cuts for the rich were EVIL. And that deregulation was the cause of all our woes (even though it was Clinton that in fact deregulated everything). Point being, Obama had no problem wading into the populist anti business rhetoric that is now being higlighted by this post. This is what the dems are. You shouldn't therefore complain about it, if you voted for Obama.

In order to be "fair," the government should only take the "collective" money that reflects profits. What percent of revenues (on average) of the oil companies is profit. Never mind. I already know the answer, and I know there's a shitload of companies (and people) who have much higher profit margins (how do you calculate the profit margin for the author of two autobiographies? I'm guessing it's pretty close to 100%).

So now some jackass, or perhaps more accurately looter or thief, a member of Congress (but I repeat myself) wants to decide how much of "our" money the oil companies deserve. "A republic, if you can keep it," indeed. I guess we can't.

Yes, crony capitalism is alive and well. Yes, there are tax breaks for oil companies. A simpler tax code would be a great idea. BP benefited from a cozy relationship with this corrupt administration.

Speculation as a form of making money is frowned upon by both religious leaders and our socialist President and Democrats. Speculating, buying scarce goods or commodities with the intention of raising prices is one thing. Gathering the equipment and personnel to go out and find oil, develop oil wells, transport the oil, process the oil, and then sell the refined product, isn't speculation. That's creation of wealth, and we should be grateful for the men willing to undertake such risky, dangerous work to aid us in our lives of leisure. The work is both financially and physically risky. They deserve to make a profit on their labor, their brains and their willingness to step up and risk ruin.

Now, the ethanol-from-corn people, they are sucking off the government teat with a highly dubious proposal. Considering how much petroleum is required to generate a gallon of ethanol, that people actually eat corn, and how this would go no where without government intervention, it is shameful. All those leftist greenies think ethanol is some how cleaner than oil. When ethanol is run in a car, doesn't carbon dioxide come out the tail pipe?

Isn't it funny how the dems keep talking about spreading the wealth around, yet those of us who could use it never seem to get any of it. It's almost as if the promise is an empty one or something...

Forty-five years waging the war on poverty, and what do we have to show for it? A record number of people living on welfare, and a record number of people getting food stamps. With battles like that lost, it seems that maybe we should just admit defeat and stop fighting the war.

Obama said he would necessarily bankrupt the coal companies with his dictate to force them to pay for carbon emissions. And he told Joe the Plumber that we need to spread the wealth, and that the Bush tax cuts for the rich were EVIL.

But Obama also said he would go after Bin Laden, even if he was in Pakistan; so he got a vote...

Anyone ever see Senator Menendez' arrogant, smug "Dem strategist" daughter, Alicia, on Fox News? She is a Harvard grad yet espouses the "woe is us" amnesty for illegal immigrants bull and has never seen a tax she does not like. The apple did not fall from the tree.

It's all crony capitalism as long as we are subsidizing them. If the Dems/Repubs were smart they'd leave the taxes alone and eliminate subsidies.

Also the price of gas at the pump is artificially high not due just due to high price of oil, but a lot of states are coming up with special requirements for refining that only two or three politically connected refineries can make.

We could drop the price of gas 40 cents a gallon if we did away with these boutique requirements, and eliminated ethanol.

This would be a trifecta of wins, no more subsisdies for oil, hence less crony capitalism (WHICH INVITES SOCIALISM), more refining capacity as states are able to use all the gas in the US and not just those refined in politically connected refineries, and a lower cost of food, when we no longer waste food on an ineffective ethanol additive that destroys engines.

That depends on the elasticity of demand, doesn't it? Do consumers get 100% of tax increases?

Mind you, I agree its regressive and hurts lower incomes more (assuming they're not living and working downtown...right where the Dems want them). I'm just trying to clear out my foggy Macro Econ 101 cobwebs.

So instead of raising taxes on the American people directly they'll use the oil companies as their agents for doing so. I supposed trying to arrange things so that individuals could keep their own money in the first place would never occur to these guys.

Because it's not individual's money. It's the COLLECTIVE money. It's ALL the collective money, except for that which they decide to permit us to keep.

Tax incentives/breaks aside. When a congressman says this:Big Oil certainly doesn’t need the collective money of taxpayers in this countryI worry. I don't want my government deciding who "needs" the money. Besides, I bought a Prius last year so I've already done my part to give less to the oil companies and more to myself. Isn't that how its supposed to work?

Doing away with Oil subsidies will also raise the price of gasoline at the pump. You will contribute to the Oil companies profit either through your taxes or through higher prices at the pump. For my money, away with the subsidies and let the price at the pump rise. It puts the power of consumerism in my hands and removes some of the political power from Washington politicians. Same is true for agriculture subsudies and all other subsidies as well.

Leland wrote:But Obama also said he would go after Bin Laden, even if he was in Pakistan; so he got a vote...

It wasn't just Mccain saying that openly declaring you would go into Pakistan if they didn't agree. That seemed to be the position of Dodd and Clinton who criticized obama for his naivete.

“I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime,” Clinton said, arguing that openly advocating military strikes might harm the fragile regime of pro-U.S. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

The issue was not so much the taking out of OBL, the issue was telegraphing the move ahead of time.

As revealed by Obama on 60 minutes the whole operation was extremely risky:"At the end of the day, this was still a 55/45 situation," Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes" in his first broadcast interview since bin Laden’s death. "I mean we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been some significant consequences."

What significant consequences might he be referring to, and don't those in fact validate Dodd's and Clinton's and Mccains' objection? Not only did Obam say he would openly attack Pakistan he said he would tell the American people ahead of time, on the grounds that they needed to know:

“But the fact of the matter is that when we don’t talk to the American people – we’re debating the most important foreign policy issues that we face, and the American people have a right to know,”

Which sounds an awful lot like he was advocating openly discussing covert operations with the American people. I don't care what the ultimate rightness of killing OBL turned out to be. Obama was advocating absolute folly and stupidity. And do you honestly believe that Mccain or Clinton when faced with the option of taking out OBL wouldn't have done so? Dodd might have vacilated, but he had no chance of winning the presidency, so his opinion doesn't count. But Mccain and Clinton were arguing soundly and Obama was talking out of his butt. It's like the rules of fight club - you don't talk about fight club. You don't telegraph to Pakistan ahead of time IN PUBLIC that you are going to attack them. Rather, you go to them, like the Bush admin went to Libya, and you lay the cards on the table and say we know what you are about and we will do what needs to be done with or without your support. If you fight us on this we will DESTROY YOU, and if you help us we will reward you. And this would be done before you have an operation to get OBL, since we would be carrying out assassinations and drone strikes on not just him but on other Al Qaeda members we find.Kind of like Obama is doing. Did we have that conversation with the american people about how we are going to bomb Pakistan and get their feedback or did we just do it. Any deals made with Pakistan would be done through back channels and not out in the open. THAT'S what Mccain and Clinton and Dodd were criticizing Obama for.

I agree with gas taxes. There are more honest than ever greater fuel economy standards that drive up the cost of cars, and they at least generate revenue for the government. It's also more honest than all the bailout and subsidy schemes for the automakers and "alternate" energy. I'd much rather simply pay more in taxes than have the money spent on snake oil.

Taxes also pressure the consumer to be more fuel efficient without forcing them to. If you just want to pay more for gas, that's OK.

Not a big fan of taxes, mind you, but they are a much more honest way to accomplish what the fuel efficiency crowd says they want to accomplish.

Also, what crazy legs said. Anybody who remembers LBJ remembers how we were going to eliminate poverty.

Crimso said...

Gee, I wonder who makes more off of a gallon of gasoline, Big Oil or the Federal Government. Don't bother, I know the answer. The hypocrisy reeks.

The margin for the oil companies is $.07 a gallon.

The Feds get $.48 a gallon.

Do the math.

johnroberthenry said...

Glencore's IPO went off last wednesday and oil prices have already started to decline.

Glencore is probably the biggest company you have never heard of and had one of the biggest IPOs ever. Big in oil and commodities trading.

My suspicion is that they were artificially bidding prices up because it has a dramatic impact on their IPO. Now that the suckers have bought their shares, prices will come down again.

It may not be because of that. Supply and demand - no drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and people with cars - still applies.

More to the point, since housing is so lousy (worst since Sept '08), the alternate theory is prices dropped because demand is anticipated to drop, too, because we're in the double part of a double dip "recession".

But don't worry. The economy is not a reason to vote for Obama. His national security plans are the reason to vote for Obama. the economy has nothing to do with it. Meade told us so. Don't worry about that little man behind the curtain who is going to raise taxes on the oil companies. They won't pass them on to the public. /huge snark - No matter how you portray it a vote for Obma in 2008 and in 201 will be a vote for disaster for the USA. We have already seen part of it and if this POS gets re-elected by idiots we will see the rest of it.

Sorry Ann, eliminating a tax credit or a deduction is not a tax increase. Eliminating them returns fairness to the tax system. When one group, in this case oil companies, are excused from paying a tax, that unpaid amount accrues to the rest of us as either higher taxes or increased debt. Since the plan in question will use the revenue for deficit reduction it is an unalloyed good. In fact it is a twofer in that in results in the aforementioned fairness.

Sorry Ann, eliminating a tax credit or a deduction is not a tax increase."

Just flat out false. It would not be a tax increase if the increased tax from deduction elimination were offset by reductions in marginal rates.

This brings up a question for me though. Do the activists who develop these talking points even consider the disrepute they bring on leftism generally? Do they believe the ability to influence a few idiots has greater long term effect than repeatedly proving how intellectually bankrupt leftism is?

I ask because leftists constantly invoke the stupidity of Americans generally, while I rarely see this from conservatives. It would seem a tactic which only works on stupid people would be more likely consciously embraced by the left given their beliefs. So is this a conscious appeal to idiots or just an example of leftism being wrong?

In the case of the car industry, allowing the market to operate without any intervention by government would have wiped out a large part of the business that is based in Midwestern states. This irreversible decision would have damaged the economy, many communities and tens of thousands of families.

"Just flat out false. It would not be a tax increase if the increased tax from deduction elimination were offset by reductions in marginal rates."

Yep. It is poor analysis and/or deceptive to make the point Sleeping Dog makes; discussing tax breaks independent of the overall tax rate (and I'm not picking on him; you hear it all the time from libs).

Personally, I am in favor of removing all tax "breaks" and lowering the overall tax rate accordingly. While disruptive in the near term, I think the resulting efficiencies and improvement in price signals would be a big boon to the economy.

Really, this is a dumb line from the conservative camp, your outrage that people should have to meet their responsibilities.

Now, that's hysterical. A self-described liberal waxing about personal responsibilities. You realize, don't you, AL, that a healthy chunk of the righteous black rage crowd see the mere phrase, "personal responsibility" as racist? Reaping what you sowed and/or chickens coming home to roost. Take your pick. Taking is what you guys do best.

Scott M: You realize, don't you, AL, that a healthy chunk of the righteous black rage crowd see the mere phrase, "personal responsibility" as racist?

No, I don't in the slightest. Please back up that charge. Name names. Who said that? When?

"black rage crowd"?? Who is that?

But your argument boils down to this:"I perceive that blacks call personal responsibility 'racist,' therefore there should be no responsibility by oil companies to support the US government that protects and supports them."

Aside from my daily duties and interactions, I listen to Mark Thompson's Make It Plain nearly every day. He (a black, nationally syndicated, host) says it all the time and has had serious problems with President Obama for saying it. His guests say it and he blasts those that call in and disagree. Check it out some time and come back and discuss. Otherwise, I'd suggest your horizons aren't wide enough.

"I perceive that blacks call personal responsibility 'racist,' therefore there should be no responsibility by oil companies to support the US government that protects and supports them."

Not at all. That's not my argument in any shape or form. My argument, in this context, boils down to, those that have been making excuses for personal responsibility for decades cannot turn on a dime and call for personal responsibility. The left and personal responsibility are ships passing in the night. I call hypocrisy and nothing more.

Simply that. When a tenet of your argument is bullshit, the rest of it is suspect. We can debate that separately, but let's stick with your assertion that, I suppose, all conservatives don't pay their taxes and are against the government having any revenue at all. Demonstrably false.

Show me, in our little back and forth, where I've even mentioned oil companies save, possible in a cite of someone else's words. By the by, how am I backtracking? I gave you a solid example of what I'm basing my opinion on and you ignore it.

True. You said conservatives are against taxes (false) and any other revenue collection (false. Both are demonstrably so because, if they were true, we would have had a civil war over it by now.

I used the "suppose" exactly as it was meant. If we're against taxes, and we pay them, you're saying we pay all taxes under duress and coercion. No room in your worldview that conservatives accept that there are things that should be taxed for and bullshit that should, though, right?

Please, I'm not that silly. I'm asking if they consciously make appeals they know will turn off intelligent voters because they believe the vast majority of Americans are stupid, and the loss of intelligent voters will be vastly outweighed by the gain in unintelligent voters. Or are they simply unable to understand that removing tax deductions increases taxes?

There's a level of stupidity it's hard to accept without believing it's a ruse. This is one of them.

"Personally, I am in favor of removing all tax "breaks" and lowering the overall tax rate accordingly. While disruptive in the near term, I think the resulting efficiencies and improvement in price signals would be a big boon to the economy."

I agree with this completely, similar to the much discussed change in road funding from a gas tax to mileage based. It's fine if it replaces other taxes. But of course we know liberals intend all taxes as augmentative. They figure if they can force the mileage tax then the general funding now spent on roads can be redirected to ACORN's children.

In a year or two I will be able to take a lump-sum retirement withdrawal. I will take the lump sum, and pay the taxes. I don't want the government to know I have money in a retirement account. Once they start taking stuff which isn't theirs, there'll be no stopping them. Youse guys with Roth Accounts, with 401K, with whatever, you file that information every year with the IRS. They know who you are and where your money is, and they'll come alooking for it. No doubt y'all stole it anyhow, and they just taking it back for the rightful owners.

Conservatives are against taxation to achieve a social agenda. They also oppose punitive or excessive taxes.

2 The oil companies are "swimming in money"

$.07 profit on each gallon sold. One of the worst margins in commerce.

3 Massive US budget deficits are an inevitable byproduct of Republican policies.

Cute. The Demos have been spending for today in the hope tomorrow wouldn't come for 80 years. There are Republicans (and not all of them RINOs, sad to say) who haven't helped, but, when one considers Little Zero spent more in 1 year than Dubya did in 8, Alpha's charge is exposed for the nonsense it is.

Given that US corporate tax rates are historically low, not to say much less than the world wide average, AND a record deficit (mainly due to the Bushco war machine and DoD), Menendez/Reid's proposal seems quite sound. BP Exxon, Cheveron et al have seen record profits over the last few years and can definitely afford it.

Now, the average teabuggers, including the ones in the House, don't know history--economic or otherwise--from their tweek stash and soon we'll be hearing another rousing chorus of Ayn Randian brainfarts --why raising taxes, that's...collectivist, goldangit...

Given that US corporate tax rates are historically low, not to say much less than the world wide average, AND a record deficit (mainly due to the Bushco war machine and DoD), Menendez/Reid's proposal seems quite sound. BP Exxon, Cheveron et al have seen record profits over the last few years and can definitely afford it.

Now, the average teabuggers, including the ones in the House, don't know history--economic or otherwise--from their tweek stash and soon we'll be hearing another rousing chorus of Ayn Randian brainfarts --why raising taxes, that's...collectivist, goldangit...

As they once said in the 2nd Bengal European Fusiliers, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?".

Smack talker is getting his material off firedoglake.

The US has the 6th highest corporate taxes in the world and even Turbo Tax Geithner has made noises they should be cut.

Big Oil has continued to rake it in under the Obama admin (ie, Exxon has posted record profits in Bush-Co, AND ObamaCo)--and the corporate tax rates haven't changed much since Reagan slashed them in 86 or so (from approx. 50%).

I'm not going to dispute profits; except to note that just 'cause they have it, it doesn't make it yours. The historical tax rate graph is interesting but doesn't bolster your claim very well. And your whopper, that US rates are much less than the world wide average, wasn't addressed.

The proposal would end a series of tax advantages for the five companies and produce about $21 billion over 10 years"

==============

How about closing all loopholes so business like GE pay taxes. Not only did GE pay NO federal income tax, they received 32 million in taxpayer money to shore up their health retirement fund thnks to the Obamacare slush fund.

Again people, GE did not pay federal income taxes this year because they had a carry-over--they had lost money in previous years, and were able to offset those loses with this year's profits. There is nothing nefarious or mysterious about what GE did.

What part of 7 cents per unit does he not understand? (I know, I know...)

When applied to the fact the Feds tax 48 cents per gallon, plus the costs of exploration and drilling, oil has one of the worst margins around. I guess he doesn't understand the concept of operating capital.

The "selective ethics" of the teabugger mind also fascinates. GE sucks according to Miss Cindy and must pay taxes, but Exxon, Chevron, and BP are cool . Must be from part of the Rush Limblow l-serv they've memorized, or something.

When applied to the fact the Feds tax 48 cents per gallon, plus the costs of exploration and drilling, oil has one of the worst margins around. I guess he doesn't understand the concept of operating capital.

Changing concepts....

ExxonMobile, however, have had a Return on Capital of about 10% for the past five year. That is, that specific oil company, has been a very good, relatively safe investment.

But a 10% RoC makes a company an efficient, well-run company, not the scene of 'obscene profits' of leftist lore.

No, Educita-- you don't understand that it's not merely posted profits, but also the cap. gains from oil stocks, and commodity market in particular--ie crude-- futures/options where the oil swine rake it in, not to salaries, perqs, etc. Then, Id don't have time to explain calls and puts to you, or leverage,. Maybe google bear and bull. And bull-shit.

As I said before, the AA hillbillies don't know f*ck about politics. Add econ. to that null class as well .

(re US corp. tax rates compared to world is left as an exercise. Point and click away, yokels....da da doo dicka doo wah dicka soo wah ooo... etc)

Our electric company has been trying to get customers to let them install a smart meter on central air conditioners...for free. I figure somewhere the feds are paying them an incentive to get these installed and perhaps, companies like GE are making and selling the smart meter equipment. That is how crony capitalism works and we, the taxpayers pay for our "free" smart meters.

AJ: "Our electric company has been trying to get customers to let them install a smart meter on central air conditioners...for free. "

The offer I received about the meters is that during times of duress, the electric company could turn your the air conditioner off, and let it run just 15 minutes an hour. That way, they wouldn't overload the system. Of course, volunteers get a discount on their electricity.

No way in hell would I allow them to install anything like that on anything I would own. (Those On-Star commercials sound good, but then, they can turn your car off for you, or listen in on you, if so inclined. Or, so persuaded by authorities. No thank-you.)

J said:'...you don't understand that it's not merely posted profits, but also the cap. gains from oil stocks, and commodity market in particular--ie crude-- futures/options where the oil swine rake it in, not to salaries, perqs, etc...'

Lord, what a moron. YA marginally bright individual couldn't even make this idiocy up.

Trying to pass this off as part of the rational for claiming the oil COMPANIES have 'seen record profits over the last few years' is breathtakingly ignorant. And to top that off by claiming that not understanding it to be true is an indication that the reader is hillbilly ignorant of economics? That has to put J into contention with Jeremy for the most asinine 'dig your hole deeper' effort I've yet seen on Althouse.